Johnston v. Cox
Decision Date | 09 March 1934 |
Citation | 114 Fla. 243,154 So. 206 |
Parties | JOHNSTON v. COX et ux. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Pat Johnston against Robert H. Cox and wife. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part. Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; M. G. Rowe, Judge.
Lawrence Rogers, of Kissimmee, and G. P. Garrett, of Orlando, for appellant.
H. N Roth, of Orlando, for appellees.
January 25, 1924, appellees employed P. A. Vans Agnew of Winter Park and Johnston and Garrett of Kissimmee, Fla., to 'straighten out' the title to their lands in Orange county. The pertinent part of the contract of employment omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
Said contract is attested by two witnesses and is acknowledged by appellees, including the separate acknowledgment of appellee Jessie H. Cox, as the wife of R. H. Cox.
Pursuant to said employment, suit was instituted in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, for the purpose of removing a cloud on the title to the lands referred to in the contract which was predicated on a claim held by James M. Cawood as administrator of the estate of J. T. Cawood. Pending this litigation, said claim was compromised by payment to James M. Cawood the sum of $6,000 in full settlement of and release therefrom. Vans Agnew and Garrett withdrew from the litigation at the time this compromise was agreed on, Johnston personally paid the $6,000, and took the deed to the lands from James M. Cawood as administrator in his own name. Nothing else appears to have been done in the matter of 'straightening out' the title. Johnston acquired all the interest of Vans Agnew and Garrett in the contract with appellees when they withdrew, and offered to convey to them (appelless) all interest he acquired in the premises through the Cawood deed on compliance by them (appellees) with the terms of the contract.
The instant suit was brought by Johnston September...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Curry & Turner Const. Co., Inc. v. Bryan
... ... 44 CURRY & TURNER CONST. CO., INC., et al. v. BRYAN No. 33436 Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B January 2, 1939 ... Suggestion Of Error Overruled January 30, 1939 ... APPEAL ... from the circuit court of Prentiss county HON THOS. H ... JOHNSTON, Judge ... Action ... by Baremore Bryan against the Curry & Turner Construction ... Company, Inc., and others for injuries sustained while ... performing duties as named defendant's employee. Judgment ... for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed ... Affirmed ... ...
-
Stewart Livestock Co. v. Ostler
... ... sufficient security for performance by the seller ... "To ... perfect the title" like the phrase "to straighten ... out the title" means to render the title marketable, and ... to secure for the purchaser a good title. Johnston ... v. Cox , 114 Fla. 243, 154 So. 206. Even in the ... absence of an express covenant to perfect title or cure ... defects which might be discovered in the record title, an ... agreement to convey "by a good and sufficient deed * * * ... free from all encumbrances, excepting four ... ...
-
Cone v. Benjamin
... ... 382, ... and cases cited ... Proper contracts ... for contingent fees for an attorney are recognized and upheld ... by the courts generally. United States v. Call, 5 ... Cir., 287 F. 520; 5 Am. Jur. 359 et seq.; 7 C.J.S., ... Attorney and Client, § 186, p. 1063; Johnston v ... Cox, 114 Fla. 243, 154 So. 206; Tenney v. City of ... Miami Beach, 152 Fla. 126, 11 So.2d 188 ... The general rule ... seems to be that a suit will be dismissed because of ... champerty only when the champertous assignment ... [27 So.2d 108.] ... or other champertous ... ...
- Wolfe v. City of Miami